loadingreadyrun.com

Fayili wrote:Aside from all the rest of that, which I also have problems with...

If it's not too much to ask, could you also tell me what else you have issues with?

Bluh. I was going to head to bed. Okay... Gimme a minute.

People who start appealing to biology on the topic of gender really tick me off. You say that "Men are not women and women are not men. It’s a simple fact of physiology." What the hell do you even mean by that? Are you completely disregarding trans, genderqueer, and agender people? If you say that, no, you're talking physiologically, are you completely ignoring intersex people?

As to your main point, just as gender is a construction, so is adulthood. There is no line that marks an adult, regardless of gender, sex, or anything else. Frankly, trying to pin that down is silly. If we're going to go with arbitrary, you might as well just make it 18, or whatever the legal "adult" age is where you are. It's pointless.

Finally, I think that any definition of "manhood" in this culture is going to be toxic, because of the centuries of awfulness that have gone into that. And anything you could do to mark out someone as being a good "man" instead of a good "person" is going to be inherently sexist. Even if you try to get chivalric about it, "treat women with respect" is going to imply that women inherently need more special care. "Treat people with respect" is just the mark of a good person. You see where I'm going with this? Masculine role models, toxic or otherwise, aren't going to solve this. Role models of every sort, FOR everyone, might be a start.

Fayili wrote:Bluh. I was going to head to bed. Okay... Gimme a minute.

People who start appealing to biology on the topic of gender really tick me off. You say that "Men are not women and women are not men. It’s a simple fact of physiology." What the hell do you even mean by that? Are you completely disregarding trans, genderqueer, and agender people? If you say that, no, you're talking physiologically, are you completely ignoring intersex people?

As to your main point, just as gender is a construction, so is adulthood. There is no line that marks an adult, regardless of gender, sex, or anything else. Frankly, trying to pin that down is silly. If we're going to go with arbitrary, you might as well just make it 18, or whatever the legal "adult" age is where you are. It's pointless.

Finally, I think that any definition of "manhood" in this culture is going to be toxic, because of the centuries of awfulness that have gone into that. And anything you could do to mark out someone as being a good "man" instead of a good "person" is going to be inherently sexist. Even if you try to get chivalric about it, "treat women with respect" is going to imply that women inherently need more special care. "Treat people with respect" is just the mark of a good person. You see where I'm going with this? Masculine role models, toxic or otherwise, aren't going to solve this. Role models of every sort, FOR everyone, might be a start.

Those are all things I have thought about yes, and I haven't really had too much opportunity to discuss the nuances of sexuality. I'll let you sleep and I will in that time revaluate the conclusions I've reached about gender.

I just think that the fact that a small subset of males feel like they are marginalized is symptomatic of something. I don't know what, which is why I brought this up.

Dubious_wolf: If you haven't, google Toxic Masculinity, it might help frame your thinking (whether you agree with it or not).

I don't want it to sound like I'm just coming and going from this thread and dropping observations like litter, but I had another stray thought about the last thing I posted. It was about the Twitter user who wanted their fans to go mass-spam something specific at someone else.

That is harassment or at least attempted harassment, right? That core assumption is correct, right? If that is so... then why does this person object to what happens to the women of the gaming industry regularly? It can't be because of the harassment, because apparently that is permissible if the person is factually or philosophically wrong. But surely, at least SOME of the jackasses who send idiotic tweets to games journalists or whoever think they're right. They're not all trolls who purposefully say terrible things. (This is the distinction I made in the entry previous to the last one.)

Is it because the targeted person is different than the attacker by some distinction of gender, race, sexuality, social status, etc.? (I won't identify the attempted harasser, but yes, an obvious distincion could be drawn.) But that couldn't be it, because that would mean they only dislike harassment when it's used against people they identify with, and then the attempted harasser would be a racist, sexist, jingoist, homophobe or whatever. (How come "homophobe" is the only one with "phobe" in it? Racophobia? Sexophobia... I think I just got my answer.)

When someone like this says that harassment is wrong and bad and the Internet should not tolerate it (an assertion I hardly think it necessary to say that I agree with)... on what possible grounds does this person have to defend themselves when they order their followers to harass someone else? It really seems like the height of hypocrisy.

King Kool wrote:That is harassment or at least attempted harassment, right? That core assumption is correct, right? If that is so... then why does this person object to what happens to the women of the gaming industry regularly?

...

It really seems like the height of hypocrisy.

Yes, and I think you answered your own question. They're being hypocritical, harassment isn't ok, and someone should tell them that.

They may be on the right side (in as much as there are sides at all in this), but that doesn't mean their actions are ok.

Similarly, I condemn all of those harassing women during all of this (and other times) AND I disagree with them on a whole bunch of stuff, but I don't disagree with them BECAUSE of the harassment, nor do I condemn their harassment BECAUSE I disagree with them. The venn diagram of those two groups just happens to be a near perfect circle...

korvys wrote:Dubious_wolf: If you haven't, google Toxic Masculinity, it might help frame your thinking (whether you agree with it or not).

I will do this and report back.

quick searches don't yield the most clear cut or concrete info... still looking.

So if I understand what I am reading "toxic masculinity" is the stereotype of the hyper-masculine hyper-aggressive man who has sex with lots of women and fights anyone at the drop of a hat?
is this an accurate definition?

Dubious_wolf wrote:

korvys wrote:Dubious_wolf: If you haven't, google Toxic Masculinity, it might help frame your thinking (whether you agree with it or not).

I will do this and report back.

quick searches don't yield the most clear cut or concrete info... still looking.

So if I understand what I am reading "toxic masculinity" is the stereotype of the hyper-masculine hyper-aggressive man who has sex with lots of women and fights anyone at the drop of a hat?
is this an accurate definition?

More accurately, the social pressures and expectations that place demands on men, requiring them to act in certain ways, and which, in extremes (or arguably well before the extremes) lead to an unhealthy, stunted, and damaging expression of manhood, including, but not limited to acts of aggression and hyper-sexuality.

-m

Matt wrote:

Dubious_wolf wrote:

korvys wrote:Dubious_wolf: If you haven't, google Toxic Masculinity, it might help frame your thinking (whether you agree with it or not).

I will do this and report back.

quick searches don't yield the most clear cut or concrete info... still looking.

So if I understand what I am reading "toxic masculinity" is the stereotype of the hyper-masculine hyper-aggressive man who has sex with lots of women and fights anyone at the drop of a hat?
is this an accurate definition?

More accurately, the social pressures and expectations that place demands on men, requiring them to act in certain ways, and which, in extremes (or arguably well before the extremes) lead to an unhealthy, stunted, and damaging expression of manhood, including, but not limited to acts of aggression and hyper-sexuality.

-m

Ok this seems like a solid concept, yes.
I think society does provide really awful male stereotypes, which I think is where some of the current anger is stemming from on social media. after all AAA games in many instances really reinforces the concept, no?

Also....


Senpai noticed me.
/joking

King Kool wrote:But that couldn't be it, because that would mean they only dislike harassment when it's used against people they identify with, and then the attempted harasser would be a racist, sexist, jingoist, homophobe or whatever. (How come "homophobe" is the only one with "phobe" in it? Racophobia? Sexophobia... I think I just got my answer.)

It's not the only word with 'phobe' in it. I believe the only real difference between a 'phobe' and a 'phobia' is how it is used in a sentence. Someone 'has' a -phobia, therefore they 'are' a -phobe.

Heterophobia/Hetrophobe - Fear of the opposite sex
Xenophobia/Xenophobe- Fear of the foreign (So encompassing the jingoist and race point point)

And while fear of race falls under Xenophobia (I don't think it had it's own term), you could probably use "Fylíphobia", (No, not a fear of Fayili) which would be using the Greek word for race/tribe; although it's not listed anywhere as an actual English 'phobia'.

Valkyrie-Lemons wrote:It's not the only word with 'phobe' in it. I believe the only real difference between a 'phobe' and a 'phobia' is how it is used in a sentence. Someone 'has' a -phobia, therefore they 'are' a -phobe.

I think he meant the question as "Why are derogatory and hostile sentiments toward homosexuals classified as "homophobic" while similar sentiments geared toward race are classified as "racist"?" (Btw, what would be the answer you think you found?)

I think mostly just a quirk of english.

(Incoming speculation)

Racist/racism and sexist/sexism as terms to condemn bigots were likely used before it was wildly accepted that those who were bigoted against homosexuals were also to be condemned. I can't think of a good synonym with the same suffix for homophobia.

Additionally, racism as discrimination against a particular race is at least neutral to the race in question. You can be racist against any race (though some more commonly than others). You can be sexist against any sex (mostly one more than the other. Also, "sex" is a bit archaic). Homophobia only really covers homosexuals, ignoring all other sexualities. It's not really that good a word, but as I said, I can't think of a better one.

As korvys says, it's just a quirk of English.

You could define all racists as xenophobes, but we generally define xenophobes nowdays as those who fear other nationalities, rather than foreign in sense of foreign from our race/tribe.

So we use two different terms because you can have different races in a community who are not 'foreign' to each other. So not liking one race in your community is hard to define as xenophobia, because they're not that 'foreign'."

With sexism, you can argue that 'heterophobia' can both be confusing to use as it could be easily mistaken to mean a fear of straight people, and that it just doesn't sound as good as sexism. "You're sexist!"/"You're a heterophobe!" which sounds better?


So yeah, you could read too deeply into this, but in reality it's more to do English usage, rather than any implicit or explicit meaning. We could come up with a word like 'homoist' or 'gayist', but it's unlikely to catch on as 'homophobic' fits the meaning exactly.

Valkyrie-Lemons wrote:'homophobic' fits the meaning exactly.

I would tend to disagree with that statement, as a phobia is a "fear" of something, and I would not classify most people who are called "homophobic" to be actually afraid of homosexuals. If they were, you'd see people running in fear like "Aaaaah! Get away from me! I'll catch the gay!" or something. Not agreeing with something or not liking something is different from a fear of that thing. I don't like spiders very much (especially since I almost lost my leg to a brown recluse bite), but I'm not afraid of them, so you couldn't classify me as an "arachnophobe."

English is weird, memo.

The word homophobic was coined to describe people who hate or dislike homosexual individuals, regardless of whether that is the precise meaning of it's component roots.

That's just what it means.

-m

Well, I've been told many, many times that language is a fluid thing, with words and meanings shifting all the time. Therefore, maybe we can improve upon it so it's not so "weird"?

Unrelated Edit: I only just realized your user picture is supposed to be mountains, a couple of moons, and a cloud against a big sun.
I always thought it was a weird face of some sort with a T-Bone steak down in the lower right corner.

You've also got remember that fear doesn't just mean being scared or frightened.

Fear - A strong, uncontrollable, unpleasant emotion caused by actual or perceived danger or threat. ([Link])


So you can have a phobia of something without being scared of it. For example, a lot of homophobes state religious grounds for opposing homosexuality. In other words, they think their religious beliefs are threatened by homosexuals, and thus they have a fear of them.

EDIT: Also, you don't find many people (I'd say none) that'd state their reason for disliking homosexuality is simply "Because they do," oh, they might not tell you the exact reason, but they do have one. So in that sense they fear something, or feel threatened, about homosexuality (regardless of how logical it is).

AdmiralMemo wrote:Well, I've been told many, many times that language is a fluid thing, with words and meanings shifting all the time. Therefore, maybe we can improve upon it so it's not so "weird"?

language is (maybe) fluid, based on typical usage patterns - it's not something that's so easy to control, and it is typically fluid in the direction of less precision, not more. (that is, words typically come to have more or expanded meanings and usages, not fewer)

AdmiralMemo wrote:Unrelated Edit: I only just realized your user picture is supposed to be mountains, a couple of moons, and a cloud against a big sun.
I always thought it was a weird face of some sort with a T-Bone steak down in the lower right corner.

haha, it's Jupiter, as viewed from the surface of Europa, I think. Taken from an old graphic novellization of 2001 a Space Odyssey - but it looks a bit like my face, so yeah :p

-m

OK, let's make it specific and personal.

I have religious beliefs that forbid homosexual activity. Does that make me a homophobe?

However, consider this: I do not feel that my religious beliefs are threatened by homosexuals. Homosexual activity does not elicit any emotion in me, neither strong, uncontrollable, nor unpleasant. Thus, by this definition of "fear" I do not have a "fear" of them.

So, would you classify me as a homophobe?

I think that's a rough question to ask.

But, if you were to use those religious beliefs in such a way as to interfere with or to deny the rights of gay people, yes I would.

If you were to openly express sentiments that were derogatory or othering toward gay people, I probably would.

If you hold your religious beliefs only to the extent that they apply to you, and not to anyone that does not share your belief, then I would probably not.

I would otherwise strongly advise you to critically examine that particular set of religious beliefs, in either case.


-m

While I can't think of a better word to refer to homophobes than 'homophobe' I still have to agree with this little statement.

Valkyrie-Lemons wrote:So you can have a phobia of something without being scared of it. For example, a lot of homophobes state religious grounds for opposing homosexuality. In other words, they think their religious beliefs are threatened by homosexuals, and thus they have a fear of them.

That argument might work better if you wouldn't use "to fear" and "to be scared" as if they were different things, they are synonyms. So no, you cannot fear something without being scared by it, as you yourself so handily proved in your own example.

But I can't help but feel that by calling anti-gay speech as "homophobic" there is a form of relativism going on. Phobias are by definition irrational fears, so suddenly you are not an asshole, you are afraid of these flamboyant gentlemen and their colourful clothing. Without really wanting to, we have put my fear of spiders and hate speech on the same level and frankly the spiders should be insulted. Especially once you realize that xenophobia (fear of the strange) is by no means equal to racism and should not be used that way.

Matt wrote:language is (maybe) fluid, based on typical usage patterns - it's not something that's so easy to control, and it is typically fluid in the direction of less precision, not more. (that is, words typically come to have more or expanded meanings and usages, not fewer)

Really? I mean if you look at the word "gay", that expanded in the 70s (?) and then contracted sharply. I would say that words may gather meanings and usages over time, but at a certain moment they have a relative exact meaning. That goes double for technical vocabulary which we are technically dealing with here.

Edit for the record: I wrote this without reading the three or so posts before this one. Also I still mostly see the face.

@cst: I did say "typically" not "always".

-m

Matt wrote:I think that's a rough question to ask.

But, if you were to use those religious beliefs in such a way as to interfere with or to deny the rights of gay people, yes I would.

If you were to openly express sentiments that were derogatory or othering toward gay people, I probably would.

If you hold your religious beliefs only to the extent that they apply to you, and not to anyone that does not share your belief, then I would probably not.

I would otherwise strongly advise you to critically examine that particular set of religious beliefs, in either case.

I do not interfere with or deny the rights of gay people, nor do I openly express sentiments that are derogatory towards gay people that are simply due to the fact that they are gay. (I have expressed derogatory sentiments towards specific people who are gay for reasons other than the fact that they are gay. People are not defined simply by their sexuality or any other single thing, unless they themselves choose to be.)

And yes, if you do not share my beliefs, that is simply that, to me. I leave it at that. You can ask my gay friends and neighbors and they'll tell you the same thing. I am open about my beliefs, but my beliefs are my own. I do not expect anyone else in the world to follow them. If they choose to, I am happy to walk the same path with them. If they choose not to, then I am happy to see them finding peace and comfort in this life on their different path.

I have indeed critically examined my beliefs several times and hope to do so as I continue throughout my life. Life is always filled with changing circumstances, new people, new ideas, and fresh perspectives. I take each of these into account when I come across them and evaluate them based on my own mind, soul, and spirit.

CSt wrote:That argument might work better if you wouldn't use "to fear" and "to be scared" as if they were different things, they are synonyms. So no, you cannot fear something without being scared by it, as you yourself so handily proved in your own example.

Fear - A strong, uncontrollable, unpleasant emotion caused by actual or perceived danger or threat.

They may be synonyms, but it doesn't mean that the two are always the same in different contexts.

Thus you can fear something without being scared of it. The same as you can fear something and also be scared of it. My example was stating that certain people state that their religious beliefs are threatened, regardless of if this perceived threat is valid or not. They probably don't feel scared about homosexuals, but they may fear "that their influence could corrupt society."


Phobias are therefore not all about irrational fears that people are scared of (i.e. Arachnophobia), but also include fears that people have that are more based around irrational hatred; which in most cases the hatred stems from a perceived threat which does not exist at all.

So using something like Homophobia does work, as it mostly applies to people who have a mostly irrational fear (through hate).

True, it can be problematic that things like Arachnophobia and Homophobia can be lumped together as 'phobias' therefore suggesting that they are equatable in some way, which they are obviously not, but you'd honestly have to be pretty dense to think that they were the same in any way.